Talk:Jorge Larrionda

Confederations Cup

There's been some vandalism regarding the straight red on Michael Bradley in the semi-final. There ought to be a section on the Confederations Cup, as Larrionda was selected for a major intercontinental tournament, but we can do without the commentary. My edits need citations, I just don't remember how to do them - all information is easily verifiable by looking at the 2009 FIFA Confederations Cup page. Kingnavland (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I offered a citation and a fair statement regarding the Americans' displeasure with the Michael Bradley decision, but your response was to protect the page. Facts are facts, and Bradley will miss the final after a rather unfortunate and harsh decision by Larrionda. That is Larrionda's only significance per the USA-Spain match. If the section is protected from telling the significance of Larrionda's participation in the match, it should not exist.

It's a long way from "indefensibly harsh" and "shameful" to what the citation actually says: "The night's only blemish was Michael Bradley's late red card, perhaps another harsh judgment as the United States can't seem to gain much benefit of the doubt from the men in the middle. Regardless, Bradley's aggressive, 86th-minute challenge will keep the American's best central midfielder out of Sunday's final." Kingnavland (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Facts are facts, and Larrionda has a history of this. It is definitely worth mentioning in the article. Soccer and the sport's integrity is bigger than an individual referee.

Check this out: It turns out that everyone in football hates Larrionda equally. Spanish, Italians, Argentines, Americans, British, everyone. http://www.facebook.com/s.php?init=q&q=Jorge%20Larrionda&ref=ts&sid=5f482578818eea7573b10a0d0aa817cd#/group.php?gid=101198557236

Heh - at least it's sourced. I won't complain, I rather agree. Kingnavland (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

England vs Germany

As much as I despise the officials for disallowing an obvious goal, perhaps we should wait until the game is over and there are a few more reliable sources we can quote, before we make emotional edits. The quotes will be there, that is assured. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a really stupid referee. He needs a visit to the eye specialist.(unsigned comment from User: 86.0.192.186, well it was signed by the bot but the IP again removed the bots signing)Off2riorob (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not a match report , and this is an article about a living person. Referees have not the benefit of action replays. It is there very nature to get decisions wrong, we on the other hand write articles according to wikipedia policy and have a duty of care to individuals to follow policy and report in a involved neutral way. This BLP reporting would not include such POV expressions as howler and blunder. Off2riorob (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's OK, I'm sure the news reports that we can quote as reliable sources will use some less than flattering language, that we can use on the article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should we? One sentence, stating that a mistake was made, is enough. Why on earth should we attempt to include quotes with "less than flattering language"? Not a single game goes by without mistakes, it's not really notable. A sentence or two is what is needed.Jeppiz (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course if there are flattering comments regarding the officials of that game, I will include them. I can't see it happening though. Let's wait and see how much press coverage there is, maybe nothing is said and it won't prove to be very notable. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can be sure that The Sun and their likes will whine about it so there will be covarege but that doesn't make it more notable to an article on Larronda. For some reason, supporters of English teams seem to think that mistakes made against their teams are extremely notable. They are not And quite frankly, Sennen goroshi, I don't think you should edit this article at all. You already have several edits on this page displaying a clear POV and lack of perspective.Jeppiz (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to see that you based your judgment on nationality and team preference, rather than the specific editor - that is very opened minded of you. It is fortunate that you have no say whatsoever in whether I edit this article or not, but to be honest, I don't really care if you think I should edit this article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what your nationality is, nor do I care. What I do is the exact opposite of what you claim - I ignore nationality and team preference and I comment on the specific editor. And an editor who writes that things referee is "disabled" for making a call, and who wants to add comments using "less than flattering language" is an editor with a misplaced POV who does not care one bit about Wikipedia. Having said that, I'm glad to see that your edits to the article have been perfectly responsible and free from the tone you used here at the talk page-Jeppiz (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you like to check the log of who said what? this [[1]] edit was not made by me. I agreed with the editor who stated that the referee in question was blind - ie. unable to notice a goal that was clearly in, but the comment about disability was made by an IP editor, not me. Feel free to apologise here or on my talk page, regarding this error of yours. Oh and it is strange that you claim to ignore nationality and team preference and only care about the specific editor, but at the same time you make comments such as supporters of English teams seem to think that mistakes made against their teams are extremely notable. - that would seem to indicate extreme bias on your part regarding fans of English teams. I have no preconceived ideas regarding supporters of any team, it would be nice if you could have the same open mind. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The IP stated that the referee was disabled, in your edit summary you claimed to agree, so I stand by what I said. As for supporters of English teams, it has nothing at all to do with nationality. Clubs such as Manchester United have almost no supporters in Manchester, some support elsewhere in England but a huge following in different countries in the world. I never said a word about "English supporters". As for the idea being preconceived, I would rather say that it is based on experience of Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 07:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm revolted !!!

This article should include information such bizarre and horrible error, unsporting and malicous referee! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.96.198 (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It does. If you have any neutral and verifiable facts to add, why not add them yourself? You don't need an account to edit wikipedia. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The WP:BLP has been Wikipedia:Semi-protection#Semi-protection. If you have any edit requests please post them here with WP:RS that support them, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, my IP using friend - no you can't add anything, however if you have any suggestions, put them here. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly that is POV. The line "crossed the line by a yard" is POV. Words such as "revolted", "bizarre", "horrible", "unsporting" and "malicious" should not even be taken seriously when making suggestions about improving an encyclopaedia article.Limetreesprig (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.174.232.71, 29 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

It should be noted in the England vs Germany match (as it is controversial) that Jorge Larrionda and his assistants are under police protection following the match.

Source: The Telegraph : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup-2010/teams/england/7857886/England-v-Germany-Jorge-Larrionda-has-previous-when-it-comes-to-line-calls.html

(South African Police spokesman Vishnu Naidoo said: "The officials will be protected by a team of elite close protection officers. Nobody will be allowed to get anywhere near them.")

Thanks!

86.174.232.71 (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't support adding this, I imagine all referees have protection. The police are doing a good job over there. Was there any attempted attacks on him? That would be notable but just to say he was protected but nothing happened is excessive and adds nothing of real value. In the article it even says ""The level of security around them remains unchanged from previous matches but the officers will be briefed to be on special alert for any trouble. Obviously there could be a degree of discontent among some fans but the safety of the officials will be ensured." Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Off2riorob - it's not at all clear that there's been any notable extra police protection, and the headline and subheading look deliberately sensationalist to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur, so I'm cancelling the request.  Chzz  ►  22:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

Police protection is not notable, and merely being briefed is not a major deal - if the police increased the level of protection, then perhaps it would warrant inclusion in the article. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

dropped

This seems a bit POV.. Following this mistake, Larrionda was dropped from the World Cup roster for the final stages .. as we don't have any comment from fifa regarding him and fifa supports that the referees make mistakes, if we had it in a reliable citation we could perhaps add, bla bla , after the Eng Ger match he was not chosen for positions of authority, or something like that. Off2riorob (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jorge Larrionda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100630075527/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/sport/football/world-cup-2010/teams/england/7857951/England-v-Germany-Frank-Lampards-goal-reignites-goal-line-technology-debate.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup-2010/teams/england/7857951/England-v-Germany-Frank-Lampards-goal-reignites-goal-line-technology-debate.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)